On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and
a liar at worst.

What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
direction.

Being wrong is being wrong.

Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was
right?

I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.

But in this case I never said Mixie was right. Mixie wasn't the
poster in question. In fact, the exchange in qustion was:

Dudley Henriques:

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

You:

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

You accused Dudley of spelling a word incorrectly although he was
using a perfectly good word. And you were wrong.

I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
sock puppet of Mixie's.



All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
undermine mine.

Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

As do I.

It seems you're a fair-weather ally.

Ally? You seem to think it's a war. I'm all for you telling Mixie
or Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong
yourself.

For a
while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
to provoke you.

That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but
it wasn't. So that makes you wrong again. It also tells me qutie
a bit about you.

Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
than I did something to push you away from mine.

Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
continue to stand by what I said:

"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."

As I note above, that wasn't the quote in question.

(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
I?)

Attack post? That comment tells me even more about you.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *